October 27-28, 2018
Oct 27 09:41 Ken Martin's partisan stripe Oct 27 23:50 The DFL's desperation machine Oct 28 09:51 Tina Smith's idea of listening? Oct 28 11:01 Tim Walz, the empty suit candidate Oct 28 13:53 A little effort might change a lot
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Ken Martin's partisan stripe
Last night on Almanac, Ken Martin, the DFL Party Chairman, did his best to appease the #MeToo movement activists while still defending Keith Ellison. Suffice it to say that he didn't exactly thread the needle. Martin started by saying that all victims of sexual abuse or assault need to be taken seriously, which is why the DFL undertook an "independent investigation" conducted by the DFL's official law firm.
Martin failed to highlight the fact that the 'investigating' law firm has contributed $500,000 to DFL candidates in the past, including $50,000 to Ellison. Then again, what's a half-million dollars amongst friends, right.
Another thing that Martin didn't highlight is the fact that Karen Monahan produced evidence of Ellison's attack by having her doctor release a document that stated she was physically and mentally abused by Keith Ellison. Despite that proof, Martin still doesn't believe her :
"I support Karen bringing her allegations forward, and I support there being an investigation into those," Martin said. "We conducted an outside, independent investigation, and that investigation showed we could not substantiate her claim of domestic abuse. And so I do not believe her; I believe our investigation."
I can't take seriously an investigation conducted by a highly conflicted law firm. One conservative I talked with put it this way:
You also have the spectacle of a paunchy, bloated DFL chairman Ken Martin telling us he doesn't believe her. Instead, we are implausibly expected to believe the DFL's own "outside" investigation of the matter. Yes, the fox has definitely concluded that there is no evidence he was in the hen house on the night in question.
What could possibly go wrong with an investigation like that? Here's Chairman Martin tap-dancing as best he could:
[Video no longer available]
Calling that investigation an "independent investigation" is insulting. Further, while Martin used a soft tone of voice, the truth is that he still called Ms. Monahan a liar. That's one of the reasons why I think Martin isn't a man of integrity.
Another reason I think Martin isn't a man of integrity is because he's defending Keith Ellison, a man who has supported cop-killers like Assata Shakur in the past. Martin is defending Ellison for purely partisan reasons. It's impossible to think he honestly thinks Ellison is an innocent man.
Posted Saturday, October 27, 2018 9:41 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Oct-18 02:16 PM
Why believe her? I believe the PiPress items about Doug Wardlow being a thug-bully against other students in high school. It's more believable. And that statement Wardlow released. Too much a weasel to answer questions in person in a press interview. When the going gets tough the tough get going and Wardlow issues a statement.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Oct-18 06:56 PM
Based on what? Ideological preferences? Do you REALLY want to live in a state/nation where a person can be ruined with allegations alone? I don't. As for releasing a statement, I'm totally fine with that considering the fact that the Twin Cities media don't play fair.
Comment 2 by eric z at 27-Oct-18 02:19 PM
Gary, I know you can read. The doctor wrote up that she SAID something happened. Same old, same old. Does Parker have an ace up his sleeve, or has that camp shot their wad?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Oct-18 06:53 PM
The doctor won't make things up. When Monahan makes statements, the doctor can't write it down on a medical document unless the dr. can verify the information.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 27-Oct-18 05:54 PM
Why believe her? Because that's what people like you told Americans they had to do during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings but now that it's your guy who has more credible allegation against him, the woman is lying and not to be believed.
The people have seen Ellison for what he really is, a partisan hack who will weaponize the AG office to fight anything Trump and they don't want any part of it.
The DFL's desperation machine
This accusation was inevitable. With Keith Ellison trailing heading into the final week of the campaign, it was inevitable that the Ellison campaign would create this type of BS story at the last minute.
According to the article, "For Ryan Durant, a former high school classmate, Wardlow's views aren't just a question of policy. They're personal. Durant remembers Wardlow as a high school bully who repeatedly harassed him for being gay and as the person who mocked him after he attempted suicide in the 10th grade. Both Durant and Wardlow attended Eagan High School and graduated in the class of 1997. In an account corroborated by several other students, Durant, 39, alleges that Wardlow, who is now 40, bullied him for years because of his sexual orientation. He said Wardlow called him derogatory terms like 'fag' and 'faggot,' and then escalated to more personal insults such as 'people like you should be shot.'"
Why wasn't this reported decades ago? Where's the evidence that this happened? Further, how does Durant explain this?
I categorically deny these allegations about me when I was 14 years old. I never did or said anything remotely like the things alleged. ... Clearly, Ryan Durant is politically motivated. In late 2009, before I held any political office and just after I announced my candidacy for State House, Durant posted on Facebook that he would consider voting for me .
The statement continues:
"Now, Durant frequently compares Republicans to Nazis on his Facebook page, and he recently 'liked' Ellison attack dog William Davis's Facebook comment that Republicans should be sent to the guillotines. The change demonstrates that the allegations are politically motivated lies. Ellison has shopped this story to multiple media outlets as a last-minute 'Hail Mary' to save his failing campaign. It will not succeed."
Clearly, Durant is a partisan. Clearly, the Ellison campaign is flailing. If ever there was a match made in heaven, it's between Durant and Ellison. Ellison won't admit that he bullied his ex-girlfriend:
[Video no longer available]
Ken Martin won't admit that his 'independent' investigation was a sham. Ryan Durant can't afford to admit that he's now a bitter partisan. Whichever way you slice it, this is a match made in political hell.
Posted Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:50 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 28-Oct-18 08:19 AM
So the question for Eric Z and the rest of the DFL, why are we to believe Durant (allegations from 20 years ago) when they won't believe Monahan (allegations from 2 years ago)?
The reason it wasn't reported years ago is the same reason Ford and the others didn't come forward 35 years ago - it didn't happen and the left is just using this for political gain. Thankfully people have seen Ellison for what he is and will be voting for Wardlow or won't vote at all.
Tina Smith's idea of listening?
Stephanie Dickrell's article on Tina Smith's St. Cloud visit should be laughed at. It isn't because the article was poorly written. It's that Tina Smith said some ridiculous-sounding things.
For instance, Tina Smith is quoted as saying "It's such a visceral reminder of how we need to get back to respecting one another, even if we disagree. We need to tamp down the anger and we can disagree with one another, but we need to also respect each other."
It isn't that we shouldn't respect each other. It's that Tina Smith hasn't practiced what she's preached since she got to the Senate. When Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, President Trump nominated then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Within minutes, Tina Smith announced that she wouldn't vote for Kavanaugh. When Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford was outed by Sen. Feinstein as having been attacked by Kavanaugh, Smith again said that she wouldn't vote for Kavanaugh, saying that the charges were too serious. The charges were serious. The evidence wasn't. The 4 people who were supposed to verify Dr. Ford's story sided with then-Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford's best friend said that she didn't even know Kavanaugh.
If Sen. Smith thinks it's important to "get back to respecting one another," why didn't she bother showing up for the only debate that was televised statewide? I remember this disastrous picture:
Where's Tina?
Tina Smith's words are nice. Unfortunately, her actions speak louder than words. That's why I'm voting for Karin Housley. She's a woman who gets things done. When she heard about seniors in nursing homes getting abused. Karin dug in to fix the problem. Unfortunately, she ran into a roadblock named Mark Dayton, who vetoed the bipartisan bill that would've fixed the problem.
Compare that with Tina Smith's inaction. The problem happened while she was Lt. Gov. She did nothing. No investigations. No disciplinary actions, either. Many of the complaints weren't in the Twin Cities so, to Tina, they didn't exist. To Tina, land outside the Twin Cities exists only for photo ops.
Posted Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:51 AM
No comments.
Tim Walz, the empty suit candidate
Reading through this article , the thing that's most apparent is that Tim Walz is the ultimate empty suit. One of the questions asked of both candidates was "Do you support the creation of a non-partisan panel to handle redistricting?"
Walz replied "We need a redistricting policy that is transparent, accountable, and based on sound research and policy. I support a redistricting process that involves communities and ensures that it empowers people and their votes." What type of mumbo-jumbo gobbledygook answer is that? I have no idea what that means.
By comparison, Jeff Johnson's reply is straightforward:
Article IV Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution says "the Legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts" so I would have a hard time handing over this power to an unelected commission or panel. In other states where this has been tried, the redistricting panels sometimes ended up more partisan and political than the Legislature. I believe the legislative process can work if we stick to redistricting principles such as equal population, compactness and preserving communities of interest.
In other words, Jeff Johnson believes in a process that requires accountability and eliminates as much partisanship as possible. Who knows what Tim Walz wants?
Empty Suit vs. Jeff Johnson
Here's another question and the candidates' replies:
Do you support gun reform, such as red flag laws? Why or why not?
JOHNSON: People deserve to feel safe in their homes, their schools and on the streets. Red flag laws can be a part of the solution to reducing gun violence perpetrated by troubled people as long as there is due process for these individuals in place.
More broadly, however, I don't believe the answer to violence in our society is further restricting Minnesotans' Second Amendment rights but rather to start addressing the difficult issues that are leading to this violence, such as family breakdown, mental illness, a pop culture drenched in violence and even school policies that ignore disruptive and violent behavior.
WALZ: As a sportsman, veteran and Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate, I believe I am uniquely positioned to build the coalitions necessary to finally get something done on this critical issue. As governor, I would fight for common-sense gun reforms, including criminal background checks, an assault weapons ban, red flag laws and funding for gun violence research. We can do these things while protecting responsible gun ownership.
Walz once had credibility on Second Amendment issues. Then he chose to run for statewide office. In so doing, he abandoned law-abiding gun owners. Meanwhile, it's totally apparent that Jeff Johnson wants to go after the root causes of gun violence rather than passing do-nothing bills that won't have any effect on actual gun violence.
In short, Tim Walz isn't a solutions-oriented candidate. He's the empty suit candidate. Jeff Johnson is the solutions-oriented candidate. That's who I'm voting for.
Posted Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:01 AM
No comments.
A little effort might change a lot
Jim van Houten's article for Alpha News is important reading for all Republicans statewide. First, it's focused on getting out Metro voters. While I staunchly agree that it's important to increase GOP metro voting, I'm of the strong belief that we should increase GOP voting everywhere in Minnesota.
This paragraph explains why increasing turnout is so important:
In November 2016 Hillary Clinton won Minnesota's presidential electoral majority by just a tiny 1.67 percentage points. However, in the metro, she beat Trump 70 to 30%, a huge 40 percentage point margin of victory in a medium sized voter segment. Trump won the remainder of the state by a margin of 58 to 42%, a smaller, but still significant, 16 percentage point margin. There are two critically important implications from these data: First, if Trump had increased his metro share of the 870,000 metro votes cast by 5.2%, his share of the metro vote would have increased only modestly to 35.4% from his actual 30.2% share. This small shift would have given Trump victory in the entire state of Minnesota. In 2010, an even smaller metro increase would have made Emmer rather than Dayton our governor.
Too many Minnesota Republicans think that we can't win because the DFL always wins Hennepin and Ramsey counties. While it's true that the DFL wins those counties, it's equally true that Republicans own rural Minnesota.
[Video no longer available]
After the 2016 election, I checked out the Minnesota House races for the size of the margin of victory for Republicans in rural Minnesota. The size of the margins astonished me. Check them out yourself . In 2016, Mary Franson won with 65% of the vote. In 2012, Mary won by 12 votes . That's an improvement of 6,775 votes.
Here's why this matters. If Tim Walz is elected governor, there's a strong chance that he'll shut down government if Republicans don't agree to raise taxes and spending. There's also no proof that he'll hold oversized government accountable. Does anyone seriously think that Tim Walz will stand up to the public employee unions who run these departments? Can anyone picture him fixing MNLARS? That's laughable.
If Republicans get out and vote like this is the most important midterm election in recent history, we have a chance to dramatically change the structure and performance of state government for a decade or more.
Posted Sunday, October 28, 2018 1:53 PM
Comment 1 by Steve at 28-Oct-18 09:15 PM
It's not just Ramsey and Hennepin Counties anymore. The Dems have been gaining strength in Dakota County for the last few election cycles. Washington County too to a lesser extent and yes, they're even trying in certain areas of Scott County.
I see them gunning for as much suburban vote as they can - soccer moms, millennial females, etc.
Mitch Berg has, in the past, advocated fighting harder in the inner cities of Minneapolis and St Paul - IOW, trying to raise our vote totals by a couple of percentage points. Outstate, it wouldn't hurt for the GOP to try to raise our vote totals in cities like New Ulm, Luverne, Willmar, Alexandria, etc.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Oct-18 12:35 AM
I've agreed with Mitch's fight for almost a decade. It's the right fight at the right time. But it's more than that. Let's admit that capitalism is the most powerful positive force in the universe. It's pulled more people out of poverty than all other economic philosophies combined. It isn't a fair fight. Period.
It's also to separate corrupt capitalists from capitalism, the system. Yes, people are corrupt. The system, though, is solid. Once we admit that capitalists are capable of corruption, we can then argue that the system is worthwhile.
